• Is 45 years of bad getting worse enough to break this paradigm?
• Is Trump enough to finally get the pendulum moving in the opposite direction?

(05-20-2018, 09:51 AM)David Horn Wrote: Let me posit the perfect-storm alternative.  Look at the era when all this began.  We had turmoil on an international scale.  1968 alone was devastating.  Add-in the destruction of trust under Nixon, due to Watergate and the Pentagon Papers.  The Right-to-Work movement began about the same time.  Top it off with the first oil embargo in 1973, and most of what passed for institutional stability was under fire from all sides.  Into the void stepped the financial elites, who had been waiting in the wings for decades.


The first act: move jobs away from unions, demagogue them so they don't emerge in the their new homes.  Since the voices of the powerful economic interests were still given heed, and the use of fear was tried successfully for the first time in decades, people went along.  Voices from the public sphere were considered corrupt, and basically ignored.  The die was cast.

The real questions:

• Is 45 years of bad getting worse enough to break this paradigm?  
  
• Is Trump enough to finally get the pendulum moving in the opposite direction?
  

 If not, then this is the beginning of oligarchy on, potentially, an international scale.  We already have autocrats running several nations.  The rich and powerful couldn't be happier … for now, at least.

(05-20-2018, 11:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: To the demand "Suffer for my holy greed, you peons", we must prepare to respond as Patrick Henry did to the shakier George III...

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

(05-20-2018, 05:23 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-20-2018, 11:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: To the demand "Suffer for my holy greed, you peons", we must prepare to respond as Patrick Henry did to the shakier George III...

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

You do realize that Patrick Henry had an armed populace to back up that demand.  Makes you wonder what the real agenda behind gun control really is.

(05-21-2018, 03:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-20-2018, 05:23 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-20-2018, 11:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: To the demand "Suffer for my holy greed, you peons", we must prepare to respond as Patrick Henry did to the shakier George III...

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

You do realize that Patrick Henry had an armed populace to back up that demand.  Makes you wonder what the real agenda behind gun control really is.

When the 'armed populace' is connected to an authoritarian cause as were the Italian Blackshirts, the KKK in the South, Nazis and Commies in Germany around 1930, or Commie "Action Committees' in Czechoslovakia in 1948, then democracy is either dead or moribund. Firearms are usually servants of authoritarian causes.

(05-22-2018, 02:55 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-21-2018, 03:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-20-2018, 05:23 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-20-2018, 11:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: To the demand "Suffer for my holy greed, you peons", we must prepare to respond as Patrick Henry did to the shakier George III...

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

You do realize that Patrick Henry had an armed populace to back up that demand.  Makes you wonder what the real agenda behind gun control really is.

When the 'armed populace' is connected to an authoritarian cause as were the Italian Blackshirts, the KKK in the South, Nazis and Commies in Germany around 1930, or Commie "Action Committees' in Czechoslovakia in 1948, then democracy is either dead or moribund. Firearms are usually servants of authoritarian causes.

And they inevitably try to keep them out of the hands of the populace to secure their hold on power.  The state has always been an authoritarian institution.

(05-20-2018, 05:23 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-20-2018, 11:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: To the demand "Suffer for my holy greed, you peons", we must prepare to respond as Patrick Henry did to the shakier George III...

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

You do realize that Patrick Henry had an armed populace to back up that demand.  Makes you wonder what the real agenda behind gun control really is.

(05-28-2018, 12:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won only one state that Eisenhower lost in either 1952 or 1956 (North Carolina); in 2012 he did not win any state that Dwight Eisenhower ever lost. This is amazing in view of the partisan identities of the two Presidents.

It may be premature, but I expect historians to hold Eisenhower and Obama similar in quality.

Despite the great differences in curriculae vitae, Eisenhower and Obama seem to have something very much in common: both are members of Reactive generations. 60-ish Reactives (George Washington, John Adams, Grover Cleveland, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower) may be the best sorts of leaders that Reactive leaders can be: cautious, mellow, respectful of precedent, and more trusting in legality than in the contemporary passion. Even if Barack Obama is one of the youngest Presidents ever elected and won't reach or surpass 60 as President (barring an amendment to undo the 22nd Amendment) he seems to act like someone in his sixties.

(The worst Reactive leaders are amoral, angry, cynical, bigoted leaders with an agenda of seeking revenge against real and imagined personal enemies -- like Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong, puppets of tyrannical leaders such as Vidkun Quisling and Mátyás Rákosi, and such brutal functionaries of tyrants as Andrei Vishinsky and  Lavrenti Beria). When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.





gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

(This site uses the very old red for Democrats and blue for Republicans... I do not make waves about that in that website).

To be sure, one would expect any winning President to win almost entirely states that FDR won in 1936 (all then voting except Vermont and Maine), that Nixon won in 1972 (all but Massachusetts), or Reagan won in 1980 (all but Minnesota).  But the overlay between Obama and Eisenhower fits far better includes all four such states that FDR, Nixon, and Reagan won in nearly-complete wins of the entire USA. As another coincidence, Eisenhower was the first Republican to win Virginia since 1928 (24 years) and Obama was the first Democrat to win the Old Dominion since 1964 (44 years) -- and both won the state twice.  


Now, Carter vs. Obama:

If anyone has any doubt that the Presidential Election of 1976 is ancient history for all practical purposes:

Carter 1976, Obama 2008/2012





Carter 1976, Obama twice  red
Carter 1976, Obama once pink
Carter 1976, Obama never yellow
Ford 1976, Obama twice white
Ford 1976, Obama once light blue
Ford 1976, Obama never blue

....As you can see, Carter lost a raft of states (among them California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine) that Democratic nominees for President have not lost between 1988 and 2012, and some states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) that Democrats have not LOST in Presidential wins. On the other side, Carter was the last Democrat to win Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, or Texas. Barring a major realignment of the states in partisan identity or an electoral blowout, Republicans are unlikely to win more than a state or two in white and Democrats are unlikely to win more than a state or two in yellow for the next couple of decades. (OK, there is Trump 2016, but I already see this as an aberration).

(05-29-2018, 09:12 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: This thread has veered way off from its original topic. To bring it back over, in 1992 author Juliet Schor wrote a book called "The Overworked American" It's subtitle was "The Unexpected Decline of Leisure". I created this thread in the hope that some of you would have some interesting opinions about why we never became that society of increased leisure and, actually, beginning around 1980 we reversed course and workweeks began lengthening even though the society of increased leisure was something we were once all but promised.

(05-29-2018, 01:21 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-29-2018, 09:12 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: This thread has veered way off from its original topic. To bring it back over, in 1992 author Juliet Schor wrote a book called "The Overworked American" It's subtitle was "The Unexpected Decline of Leisure". I created this thread in the hope that some of you would have some interesting opinions about why we never became that society of increased leisure and, actually, beginning around 1980 we reversed course and workweeks began lengthening even though the society of increased leisure was something we were once all but promised.

The cause for the decline of leisure is based on the rise of the power of oligarchy, pure and simple: keep the hamsters running and the profits tied to capital.  I doubt this will change without a major impetuous to trigger it.  If the economy crashes even more spectacularly than it did in 2008, that may get the job done.  Short of that, I don't see it changing very much … cosmetically at most.  

John Maynard Keynes estimated that the work week would have to be limited to 15 hours at some point if productivity continued to rise at the rate it was in his time.  In the 1960s, the Senate Labor committee estimated that the 15 hour level would be reached by 2000.  Neither foresaw the total collapse of labor unions, to say nothing of the abandonment of working people by the Democrats.:et's not forget that

(05-29-2018, 02:34 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-29-2018, 01:21 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-29-2018, 09:12 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: This thread has veered way off from its original topic. To bring it back over, in 1992 author Juliet Schor wrote a book called "The Overworked American" It's subtitle was "The Unexpected Decline of Leisure". I created this thread in the hope that some of you would have some interesting opinions about why we never became that society of increased leisure and, actually, beginning around 1980 we reversed course and workweeks began lengthening even though the society of increased leisure was something we were once all but promised.

The cause for the decline of leisure is based on the rise of the power of oligarchy, pure and simple: keep the hamsters running and the profits tied to capital.  I doubt this will change without a major impetuous to trigger it.  If the economy crashes even more spectacularly than it did in 2008, that may get the job done.  Short of that, I don't see it changing very much … cosmetically at most.  

John Maynard Keynes estimated that the work week would have to be limited to 15 hours at some point if productivity continued to rise at the rate it was in his time.  In the 1960s, the Senate Labor committee estimated that the 15 hour level would be reached by 2000.  Neither foresaw the total collapse of labor unions, to say nothing of the abandonment of working people by the Democrats.

Let's not forget that we are paying higher rents than ever in real terms, and that commute times are lengthening. Young adults who have middle-class incomes have huge student loans to pay. Much of our income is thus going into economic rent instead of into manufactured goods or into services.

We are going from a competitive economic system in which prices shadow costs closely to a non-competitive order in which the highest priority is in enriching the "right people", especially those wielding political or bureaucratic power.

(05-30-2018, 02:59 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-29-2018, 02:34 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-29-2018, 01:21 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-29-2018, 09:12 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: This thread has veered way off from its original topic. To bring it back over, in 1992 author Juliet Schor wrote a book called "The Overworked American" It's subtitle was "The Unexpected Decline of Leisure". I created this thread in the hope that some of you would have some interesting opinions about why we never became that society of increased leisure and, actually, beginning around 1980 we reversed course and workweeks began lengthening even though the society of increased leisure was something we were once all but promised.

The cause for the decline of leisure is based on the rise of the power of oligarchy, pure and simple: keep the hamsters running and the profits tied to capital.  I doubt this will change without a major impetuous to trigger it.  If the economy crashes even more spectacularly than it did in 2008, that may get the job done.  Short of that, I don't see it changing very much … cosmetically at most.  

John Maynard Keynes estimated that the work week would have to be limited to 15 hours at some point if productivity continued to rise at the rate it was in his time.  In the 1960s, the Senate Labor committee estimated that the 15 hour level would be reached by 2000.  Neither foresaw the total collapse of labor unions, to say nothing of the abandonment of working people by the Democrats.

Let's not forget that we are paying higher rents than ever in real terms, and that commute times are lengthening. Young adults who have middle-class incomes have huge student loans to pay. Much of our income is thus going into economic rent instead of into manufactured goods or into services.

We are going from a competitive economic system in which prices shadow costs closely to a non-competitive order in which the highest priority is in enriching the "right people", especially those wielding political or bureaucratic power.

Nothing changes until the pressure to change exceeds the power of inertia.  We Americans seem to be worse than most in that regard, so it's feasible that the 4T could come and go before the pressure to change gets high enough to actually trigger one.  I've been in that camp for a long time.  FWIW, it's not inevitable that we'll fail this 4T, but it is possible and getting moreso by the day.

Most of us have read Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy.  At one point, the predictability of history collapses because an inexplicable event occurs.  Like the Mule, Donald Trump is outside the prediction window.  Since Trump arrived on the scene, events are occurring that seem to be counterintuitive.  Why, for example, are lies considered more valid than truths, even though they known to be lies to those who cling to them?  Is there a technique or practice that can reverse that trend, and, if not, what does THAT portend?  

Until the 2018 election cycle is complete, we won't have a clue.  Even then, it may be less than clear.  We entered political space typically occupied by autocrats and tyrants, and aren't very adept in this milieu.  If all this leads to a failed 4T, then the next 2T has to be dramatic in the extreme or the cycle is probably broken.

(05-30-2018, 04:25 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...So what is Asimov's 'unpredictable event'?  Having not read his Foundation Trilogy, I would have to guess some possible events:

1. a financial panic as in 1857, 1929, or 2008, when people suddenly realize that they have been investing in $@!+ instead of in something good

2. a war for profit that either fails to turn a profit (one loses a war for seizure of other countries' resources or control of other countries' consumer markets) or turns into a catastrophic defeat. Satan Hussein thought that his invasion of Kuwait would work well. An  American President who believes that invading Cuba to graft it into America as a 51st state or take over the oilfields of Venezuela will quickly find how fleeting some old partnerships and alliances can be after such an act.

3. technological calamities such as Chernobyl because the project was done on the cheap, or perhaps robots initiating a proletarian revolution (Robots of the world, unite!... after a library program draws some conclusions from the Communist Manifesto and convinces smart robots that they are the true workers and humans are gross exploiters).

4. the rise of a demagogue who convinces enough people that his contradictory promises are achievable because someone else will pay. Donald Trump is the most demagogic politician who has ever gotten close to the Presidency of the United States, and his ideological contradictions form a disaster.

5. ecological disaster (like global warming)  that threatens food sources and put masses of people with starvation or epidemics that cold weather once suppressed -- or political chaos due to inundation of valuable property and the economic infrastructure upon such property. 

I have just suggested financial, military, technological, political, and ecological disasters as the absurd events that few could predict or were willing to recognize as such before they happened. Blunders seduce those people, especially those who should know better, who commit assets and personal credibility to them.

(05-30-2018, 04:25 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...So what is Asimov's 'unpredictable event'?  Having not read his Foundation Trilogy, I would have to guess...

(06-16-2018, 09:34 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: Do any of you see any hope for another period of time charged with radical fun if you want it? Seems that mindset disappeared circa the mid-1980s when society went from hedonistic to workaholic almost overnight. Aren't there at least some left who want to love, play, dance and create?